tv [untitled] December 9, 2010 2:00pm-2:30pm PST
ordinance and hold off on any board action until after the commission has a chance to review it january 15th, we would like to thank you for your support of the predecessor of this ordinance that created access street frontage uses and look forward to staff coming up with similar street frontage controls for the residential districts. i will save a lengthier philosophical discussion for january at that commission meeting. >> ann marie rogers, again, just to go through in detail what the implications of this were to be, if we were to use the nc3 districts as a reference point. we would take any use principally permitted on the ground floor and if they were permitted there, then we would allow them to be principally permitted below in the rc
districts, similarly, if conditional use was required for use in the nc3 districts, it would be also allowed in the rc district by conditional use on the ground floor below. now, when you are looking above the ground floor in the rc districts, we would again still look to the ground floor of the nc3 districts, but anything principally or conditionally permitted would be conditionally permitted above the ground floor in the rc district. so that's the bulk of the proposals. then there are a few recommended tweaks and policy adjustments that the department feels is required. formula retail is controlled by conditional use authorization in a portion of the van ness, pus but only those parcels that face van ness avenue.
secondly, there would be a conflict created? the limits personal uses are listed as permitted in the rv district. that's a little inconsistent, we all right have controls for how they shrug divided. we don't want to prejudice back to 231, but to keep consistent, we will just use the same nc controls, secondly we are proposing adding as use citizen limit. any use size over 6,000 square feet would be conditionally permitted. we feel this is a mine another change, most use of that size would already likely require a conditional use authorization. and then next providing that liquor sources be principally permitted on the ground floor in rc district, unless otherwise
specified. much of the area in the tenderloin is in north of market special use district which has an outright prohibition on alcohol uses and that would remain in effect for those areas. next, just to clarify, drive-up facilities are not permitted in rc use district. this is not a change. these uses are in the permitted, so we would make sure that was specified so no doubt about that. if you feel the nc3 uses are appropriate then we would recommend parallel controls for the walk-up facility and treat them in the rv district in the same manner, that would be they would be principally permitted on the ground floor if they were recessed and followed those procedures and then conditionally permitted if they
didn't follow the same guidelines as the nc district. same with outdoor activities, permitted in the front and conditionally permitted elsewhere. we feel that is largely consistent with the nc3 districts. that's our recommendation before you. the resolution that is attached to this memorandum describes that we are recommending approval of modification of just this portion of the ordinance, this case report does talk about a few other amendments but it would just be conforming amendments to implement the policies i just described. we are recommending, and then we recommend that you do tall the remain -- of the street frontage. i have checked with secretary staff and there is room on that calendar. president miguel: thank you. i have two speaker cards, tom
radulovich and marilyn anene. >> thanks, commissioners. key have the overhead? would that be possible? great. just a few things. first of all in the recommendation that's before you, i really appreciate your staff, after coming here last week, taking a second look at this. i think it's a great set of uses and very inappropriate for the rc district. i think we came up with a great 21st century solution to the problem and thanks to everybody who worked on that. and i would fully commend it to you, and hopefully to the full board. we will put the uses behind us at least for the time being, we are ok with the continuance, as well. i think it's fantastic and tremendously important to the city. it's important for a few reasons, we would love your
staff to take a closer look at two issues, one is the issue of what's called a snout house. i have an illustration here. this is a snout house. a snout house is a house that sticks its garage out toward the street and all the human-oriented parts of the building gets pulled back. very takic of post world war ii construction. we don't have any in san francisco. they tend to have a garage that is flush with the interest facade. the current code does permit you to turn an existing building into a snout house. this is a victorian house and they pushed the garage out to the street and kept the principal back. this is unsafe for pedestrians, destroys the character of the neighborhood.
now, because this house did it, the our two houses on either side can do it. this proposes getting rid of the snout house. staff weren't recommending it. we think that they should recommend it. portland got rid of it. seattle is taking this up now. the other issue is street frontage requirements and i have another slide for what are called the limited commercial uses. this is 18th and san chez, a nonconforming use in a residential district. what this ordinance was trying to do was say, hey, a lot of the characteristics of this building, the transparent street front damages, the active use on the ground floor, they really contribute to character of the neighborhood. if that were a blank facade with the same use, it would be a real detraction, we were asking the
commission to look at control. those same street frontage controls supported for neighborhood commercial district, would also apply in our district. it wasn't recommended but if your staff looks as it again, we would come up with something satisfactory. just feel like there's a little more work needed on these issues until we come up with something everybody is happy with. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> commissioners, i think continuance is important. i just became aware of this ordinance and in the agenda there's no indication of the supervisor's file number. anyone wanting to access the legislation itself wouldn't be able to. it's standard practice to include the board of supervisor's file number, so at 1:30, i went over to the board's clerk's office and got a copy of
the 76-page legislation. i am not sure how many people are aware this is out there. i am glad to hear it is proposed for continuance until january 13th. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> commissioners, director of the office of small business. i am just here to say that i am very pleased that staff has worked with our office. the commission supports supervisor mirkarimi's legislation and we support the direction this is going in. thank you. president miguel: thank you. >> good afternoon, jeremy paul. seeing the picture of the cafe, i thought i would share the history of why this problem needs to be resolved. some years ago, commissioner sugaya was sitting on the board of appeals, and the awning was cited for being an illegal
awning. the board of appeals in its infinite wisdom determined that a permeable awning, something that did not shed water was not a violation of the zoning. so parting subjects, to try to allow an aging which is procedure for that state and that use, with the amount of sun they get, with the south facing windows, it would be really prop to make uses for the adjacent requirements on the exterior, thank you. president miguel: additional public comment? if not, public comment is closed. vice president olague? >> i wanted to thank the supervisor's office for giving us more time with this and for all the work you have done, tom, it's important stuff, but it's so subtle and wonky, that most
people, it's just impossible to follow it or stay awake while you are following it, too. but a few of us might find this really -- and it is really important stuff. i think for whens of the public, this will have positive impacts on certain businesses, it's good for the public to have time to review it and see where it could lead the city. sometimes they say the devil is in the details, and it's these smaller issues that have impacts. i appreciate the whole revisiting of the c2 stuff, based on the conversation we had here. i appreciate the revisions the department did there and i look forward to having more time to spend with it. i will go through and read some of these. and thank you ndres for being here and giving us the input from small business. i would like to hear their input on this conversation and see
whatever stuff they. there's a little graph here and i want to be able to study it and look at it, too. i appreciate having that extra time to do so. president miguel: commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i have a cup will of questions for arch marie rogers. if this has been gone over already, correct me. but we are dealing with today, changes to rc3, and rc4 districts, is that it, not just van ness. >> that's correct and those are the only rc zoning districts left in the city. commissioner antonini: but there are others in divergent parts of the city. >> i have a map. rc1 and rc2 is still listed in the stable but it's only rc3 and rc4 that is mapped in the city. and they are the tender lobe and
along vans in after. >> ok. >> but if you are looking, oh, moving it too big for the screen, i think. ok. this is market street, you can see where van ness hits market street and this light-orangish color here is the rc4. let's see where the rv3 is. so it runs all along van ness and it's also the same color at rc3 at the top of the man and in the tender loin and then here is the adjacent zoning map. continuing on, here's market, jones and taylor street. again, this is the rc4.